I'm not interested in F2P games. To enjoy them properly they end up costing a lot more than traditional games and the gameplay tends to revolve around grind rather than enjoyment. Age Of Empires Online was a classic example of that, with civilisations that amounted to hundreds of pounds if you bought them all. It's a disgusting business model but it's no surprise to see EA embrace it.

Quboid wrote on Oct 31, 2012, 23:05:This is the first I've heard of this too. What was actually said about her?

Actually, I assume it was related to the comment made about her probably being paid for by Square Enix because she was promoting Tomb Raider. There was nothing wrong with the article though - it never accused her of anything.

And if she's connected to The Sun then she's not even trying to be a serious journalist. She's only in it for the money and the power.

This is the first I'd heard of this entire saga and it's incredibly depressing, though not at all surprising. This woman sounds like a truly repugnant individual and the gaming industry would be much better off without the likes of her.

On the plus side, I finally got to read the Eurogamer article and I have to say I found it a thoroughly good read. I just wish we was able to keep writing for them.

PS - That picture of Geoff Keighley is sickening. What a fucking sell out.

I can't even manage 60fps on my system, even with Ambient Occlusion turned off. That's mainly because I'm playing at 2560x1600 and it doesn't support SLI. It's certainly not a very well optimised game. Black Mesa looked and performed much better.

Verno wrote on Oct 31, 2012, 15:09:I'm amazed they had any real expectations for Medal of Honor.

I didn't even know it had been released, so clearly their advertising isn't up to the job. And yeah, the previous game was utter shit - Steam says I put 69 minutes into it and a lot of that was spent replaying glitchy levels.

Rigs wrote on Oct 31, 2012, 14:55:You know, you guys are bitching but entropy already gave the game away...you and I know damn well *R will put out a PC version. They haven't NOT put out a GTA before on PC, why stop now, eh?

Who gives a shit when it's going to turn up nearly a year later, look like ass and run just as poorly? I've bought every previous version of GTA but I have zero interest in GTAV. As I've already said, Watchdogs looks great and they announced the PC version right off the bat.

This is a website for gamers and most gaming enthusiasts have a decent PC because it offers the best gaming experience out there. They also often have consoles.

People are frustrated because the PC offers such a great experience and too often developers focus on consoles to the detriment of the PC. A classic example of that is Halo, which was originally shaping up to be an excellent PC game but ended up becoming a console exclusive - it was a worse game as a result and gamers suffered. Personally I can't be bothered with consoles because image quality is important to me and 1280x720 - often at 30fps - simply doesn't cut it for me. I game at 2560x1600 at 60fps and consoles can't even come close to that.

The Half Elf wrote on Oct 31, 2012, 05:22:Shit Port? Considering they added alot more options to take full advantage of high end pc's? If you google you can find the settings used in the console version's, and the game runs quite fine but looks like shit.

If you're talking about GTAIV, then yes - it absolutely was a shit port. The graphics were terrible (no anti-aliasing, terrible texture quality), the performance was terrible (my current system still can't manage 60fps and it's years ahead of the hardware available at the time) and it was bundled with shitware. That's before mentioning the massive delay. It also lacked PC exclusive features like DX10, which earlier released multi-platform titles like Far Cry 2 and Assassin's Creed included.

As for Max Payne 3, it's not even in the Top 100 on Steam. To give you an idea, games like Mafia II, Crusader Kings II, FTL: Faster Than Light, Just Cause 2 and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare are on that list. I bought it on sale and enjoyed it for a little while but as enjoyable as the narrative is the gameplay is pretty tedious and the cutscenes are simply ridiculous. More bizarrely, some cutscenes are in-game and others are prerendered - that's a huge issue when the prerendered cutscenes are done at 30fps @ 720p with super compression, which looks like complete ass in comparison to the in-game graphics. I don't know what the fuck they were thinking but that's completely unacceptable on the PC. When I first played the game I thought the game must have been broken because the graphics were so bad.

Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 23:21:Watchdogs does indeed look amazing. I am hoping it's a deep experience, but what has me the most worried is wondering if Ubisoft will regress yet again with its stupid DRM.

Well, Ubisoft has at least moved away from the always-on DRM that they pushed for so long. More importantly, their PC ports are usually solid-to-excellent - for all the issues with the gameplay, Far Cry 2 was actually incredibly well optimised and took advantage of DX10.

With Max Payne 3 they developed the PC version alongside the console version and it was released within a couple of weeks of the X360 and PS3 releases. It's widely regarded as a decent port and my experience with it was positive, although I found the gameplay decidedly lacking.

With GTAIV they developed the PC version long after the console versions and it was bundled with shitware (GFWL and Rockstar Cuntflap Club). It was widely regarded as a shit port, which ran like ass and looked terrible - the gameplay was also decidedly lacking.

If they follow the same release timetable as they did with GTAIV then the PC version will be released at the very end of next year, where it will coincide with the launch of Microsoft's next-gen console. Even if the port was stunning it will still look shit in comparison to next-gen games. More importantly it will be competing with Watchdogs, which IS getting a PC release and looks much better than the terrible GTAV trailer that Rockstar put out.

I officially couldn't give a shit about GTAV. And it's just pathetic that they're suspending people for bringing up the PC version. I thought Rockstar had learnt their lesson after Max Payne 3 but no, they fucked it up again.

KTR wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 17:02:Typo, I mean the technology as in debuting the RAGE engine in open world format and being the first to show off Euphoria. Obviously R* was not going to use Renderware for GTA4, therefore time had to be invested in new technology leaving less time for gameplay. Now that they have the technology in place and fairly optimized, now R* can focus on gameplay.

The only plus side is that PCs are now so powerful that if Rockstar messes up the PC version they'd really have to be trying... which I'm still not ruling out.